piyush goyal twitter

Ministers Follow Hate Accounts That Made Call to Boycott Muslims a Top Twitter Trend

The trend, which clearly falls under the category of promoting enmity and hatred against a community, violates Indian law.

New Delhi: On Sunday evening, the hashtag #मुस्लिमो_का_संपूर्ण_बहिष्कार (‘Total Boycott of Muslims’) started trending on Twitter, with a large number of right-wing accounts tweeting it en masse.

The individuals using the hashtag advocated a range of discriminatory actions against Muslims.

These ranged from boycotting the buying of goods and services

Boycott and stop buying any goods and services from these converted ????

#मुस्लिमो_का_संपूर्ण_बहिष्कार

— (((Fearless Hindu))) (@_Hinduism_) October 20, 2019

to advocating a ban on places of religious teaching:

मदरेसों के बंद कमरों मैं ऐसी ही नफ़रत पनपती है। So much of hatred from so early in life!!! By the time he will reach to adulthood, he will be an exemplary bigot spreading filth of hatred.
There should be nationwide ban of Madrasas. #मुस्लिमो_का_संपूर्ण_बहिष्कार #KamleshTiwari pic.twitter.com/VXgql4iNzi

— भव्य भारत (@Sanatan_Shasan) October 20, 2019

Regrettably, the fact of bigoted hashtags reaching a nationwide Twitter trend is not an unusual occurrence – on October 18, the hashtags ‘#ProphetisGay’ and the translation, ‘#पै_GAY_म्बर’ trended, managing to be both homophobic and Islamophobic in one fell swoop, while on October the 19, the hashtag ‘#BoycottAllah’ was trending, with about 20,000 tweets.

I cancelled my Zomato order because the delivery boy was a Mulla. Every time starting from today #BycottAllah. Retweet if you agree.

— Gaurav Singh (@sinh05) October 19, 2019

However, Sunday’s trend clearly advocates active discrimination against a group of people on the basis of religion and falls under the category of promoting enmity and hatred against a community – something that is illegal under Indian law, with section 153A of the IPC stating that:

“Promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, etc., and doing acts prejudicial to maintenance of harmony.—

(1) Whoever—
(a) by words, either spoken or written, or by signs or by visible representations or otherwise, promotes or attempts to promote, on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, caste or community or any other ground whatsoever, disharmony or feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will between different religious, racial, language or regional groups or castes or communities… shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.”

Given section 153A, the people using this hashtag can be held accountable for their speech if the authorities choose to take cognizance of it – something that the police is generally keen to do on matters concerning ostensible sedition, ‘anti-national’ behaviour and so forth.

Also Read: General Narendra Modi and His Troll Army

However, till the time of publication, The Wire was not aware of any police department or ministry objecting to the promotion of religious enmity on Twitter and taking action, either against the individual handles or even Twitter, as an intermediary under the Information Technology Act. A recent report found the Indian government’s demands for takedowns from Twitter had propelled the country to fourth on the list of most censorious states.

It is possible the police is reluctant to act against the individuals currently promoting this hashtag with the intent of malice against Muslims since many of them are followed by prominent politicians – including Prime Minister Narendra Modi and various cabinet ministers.

The handle ‘@GovindHindu’ for example uses the hashtag to show an inflammatory picture. He is currently followed by four members of the BJP – the Prime Minister included.

The handle ‘ExSecular’ put out a tweet in a similar vein, though without the hashtag, using a photoshopped image of actor Swara Bhasker to imply that she was calling for the hanging of the people accused of Kamalesh Tiwari’s murder.

She is also followed by Modi, along with Kapil Mishra and the office of commerce and industry minister Piyush Goyal.

Also Read: It’s Not What Modi Is Tweeting – It’s What He Is Reading

While these two accounts were followed by a range of ministers, the Office of Piyush Goyal happens to have been following a significant amount more, including handles below. This is, however, not an unusual occurrence either – the ‘Office of Piyush Goyal’ Twitter handle was in hot water before for following inappropriate accounts, most recently the instigator of the Zomato fiasco.

We can’t live with terrorists, as simple as that. Let us live peacefully, we have given you 2 countries. Leave Hindus alone.#मुस्लिमो_का_संपूर्ण_बहिष्कार

— #MaiBhiKamlesh (@AnuragM_Tweets) October 20, 2019

This is how peacefully community teach their kids about ganga jamuni tehjeeb #मुस्लिमो_का_संपूर्ण_बहिष्कार

pic.twitter.com/x6fdJf6aei

— Raja babu ? (@RajaBabuLeaks) October 20, 2019

The same video was also circulated by the journalist Abhijit Majumder (who is a verified account on Twitter), in a sardonic thread about how Muslim children are being radicalized.

Of all the Islamist murders, the murder of childhood is perhaps the most brutal and tragic. A short thread of child #jihad videos, starting with the most recent one.#MuhammadForAll pic.twitter.com/9wxKJ2yl9F

— Abhijit Majumder (@abhijitmajumder) October 20, 2019

However, he sarcastically used the hashtag #MuhammadForAll – which had come up in response to the hate-filled hashtag that had filled the evening and which began an hour after the original hashtag emerged.

In a positive turn of events, at the time of writing, the hashtag celebrating the religion had 42,000 tweets – over 14,000 times more than the hate-filled one vilifying it.

Waiver Should Include KCC Loans From Commercial Banks, Say Rajasthan Farmers

Although cooperative societies are also empowered to disburse KCC loans, farmers usually take them from either commercial or rural banks.

Sirsi, Jaipur: Almost two months after the Congress government in Rajasthan announced the complete waiver of farm loans, it held three-day camps, starting February 7, across the state to distribute loan waiver certificates to eligible farmers.

The government decided to waive outstanding short-term crop loans till November 30, 2018 of the primary cooperative land development banks and central cooperative banks – primary agriculture cooperative societies (PACS) and large area multi-purpose cooperative societies (LAMPS).

Short-term crop loans which were transformed to Medium Term Conversion (MTC), Medium Term Conversion Rephasement (MTCR) and Medium Term Conversion Rephasement and Reschedulement (MTCRR) due to natural disasters have also been included.

A farmer with the list of loan waiver beneficiaries at the event. Credit: Shruti Jain

The loan waiver is not just restricted to the defaulters. As per the scheme guidelines, if any farmer deposited a partial or full amount against his dues (that stand on November 30), he/she will still be provisioned to receive the outstanding loan amount in their savings account. The loan waiver amount is to be paid to the banks till June 30, 2019.

However, the loan waiver camps would reach out to only 1% farmers associated with the cooperative societies. “There are about 6,000 cooperative societies in the state and the camps were organised for only one society per district. It will take around three to four months to reach out all the farmers,” a senior official at the Apex Bank told The Wire.

Also read: Proxy Beneficiaries Reported in Raje Government’s Loan Waiver Scheme

Cooperative societies can disburse loans only up to Rs 1.5 lakh. The benefit of seeking loans from a cooperative society is that it doesn’t need a charge (a guarantee to secure the payment in case of default) over the land, which essentially means that a farmer who doesn’t own any land could also attain a loan.

This is in contrast to a Kisan Credit Card (KCC) loan, where the farmer is given a loan on the basis of his land size. The rate of interest charged on KCC loans up to Rs 3 lakh is fixed at 7%, of which the government of India provides the interest subvention of 3% to those farmers who repay their short-term production credit within one year of disbursement.

Even so, farmers face discrimination within cooperative societies. Narsi Ram from Govindpura village in Kalwar says that the loans are being allotted only to the relatives or preferred individuals of the committee members.

“The cooperative societies are being run by the chairman who’s elected by a committee. He has a say in all the matters, including even to whom the loan would be disbursed. If a villager speaks against the chairman or the committee, he’ll never be able to attain a loan from the cooperative society.”

Farmers received a text message on their mobiles for being selected as loan waiver beneficiaries. Credit: Shruti Jain

To attain the loan waiver, famers are sent a text message stating that they have been shortlisted, but that Aadhaar verification is required to proceed further. “This is the first time that a genuine debtor will get the waiver after Aadhaar verification to ensure that there is no irregularity in the process,” Neeraj K. Pawan, registrar, cooperative department said.

This has raised concerns among the farmers who aren’t able to secure monthly rations as the verification machines often fail to register their biometrics.

Although cooperative societies are also empowered to disburse KCC loans, farmers usually take them from either commercial or rural banks.

Chief minister Ashok Gehlot said that in the first phase of the loan waiver, the government will waive loans of cooperative and development banks, following which it will move to commercial and rural banks. However, a majority of the farmers The Wire spoke with at the loan waiver camps were not happy with the scheme as it did not cater to the KCC loans they had sought from commercial banks like the State Bank of India.

Also read: Farmers’ Crisis: Are Loan Waivers, MSP Hikes, Assured Income the Solutions?

“The amount due on KCC loans is as much as Rs 10 to 20 lakh on individual farmers. If the government really wants to waive loans for the farmers, it should waive the KCC debt on them, not from the societies,” said Buddhi Prakash, a farmer from Sirsi.

Others feel that the waiver is just another appeasement meant for the Congress party’s revival at the union level. “Congress jab tak roti feko tab tak peeche aayenge’ kehisabh se chal rhi hai (Congress is giving us a bit now so that we keep supporting them till the Lok Sabha polls),” Sunder Dhaka, a farmer from Sirsi who has a KCC due of approximately Rs 1 lakh, told The Wire.

Loan waiver banner at the event. Credit: Shruti Jain

The Vasundhara Raje government, during its tenure, had effected a one-time loan waiver of up to Rs 50,000 for small and marginal farmers who had defaulted on short-term loans from cooperative banks.

Comparing its waiver with the Raje government’s just before the assembly polls, deputy chief minister Sachin Pilot, at a loan waiver camp in Sirsi, said, “The last government had half-heartedly announced a farm loan waiver only after coming under our pressure. Out of the Rs 8,000 crore claimed for the waiver, only Rs 2,000 crore could reach the public. We announced farm loan waivers within days of forming a government. The state government is ready to accept a burden of Rs 18,500 crore for the loan waiver.”

Farmers’ Crisis: Are Loan Waivers, MSP Hikes, Assured Income the Solutions?

What haunts Indian agriculture is structural, and if not addressed as such, one would be mistaking symptoms for the disease.

Shivraj Singh Chauhan was dethroned as Madhya Pradesh’s chief minister after a long stint lasting 15 years. Although the Bharatiya Janata Party lost in Madhya Pradesh, the party secured two lakh more popular votes than the Congress. Chauhan had a farmer-friendly image for a long time. He reportedly complained to the RSS number two, Bhaiyaji Joshi, that had the policies of the Centre not ruined agriculture, the BJP could have won in the state for a fourth time.

There is merit in this lamentation. The link between the state of agriculture and poll outcomes appears to be strong. All three states, Chhattisgarh, Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan – where the Congress defeated the BJP – are rural, agricultural states. Last year, the BJP was nearly upended in its bastion, Gujarat, where the the party received a setback in rural areas. The prosperity and poverty of the agrarian economy have strong bearings on rural India.

Do the political parties eyeing the 2019 general elections have an assessment of what ails the Indian farmer?

The Congress party appears to be clued in. In the recently concluded state elections, the party promised that farmers’ loans would be waived. Noticeably, the BJP had made no such promise. Looking back, in 2008 the UPA government led by the Congress announced loan waivers worth Rs 60,000 crore and, subsequently in the 2009 general elections, the coalition returned to power. Thus, it won’t be misplaced to infer that loan waiver promises raked-in a sizeable chunk of votes in both, 2009 and 2018.

Also read: Interim Budget Promises Rs 75,000 Crore Income Support for Farmers

The reason behind the loan waiver in 2008 was a crisis in agriculture. In the Vidarbha region of Maharashtra especially, farmer suicides had reached into the thousands. The ratio of ‘farmer suicide mortality rate’ to ‘non-farmer suicide mortality rate’ reached its peak in the mid-2000s in Maharashtra.

Why do farmers commit suicide?

Researchers have repeatedly found one primary reason: loan default.

As the cost of farming increases, farmers get compelled to borrow. If the crop fails or prices collapse, farmers’ incomes drop, poverty and the anxiety of not being able to repay loans pervades, and coupled with the loss of face and social shame – suicide becomes a saviour from this chain of debilitating events. In these circumstances, loan waivers certainly provide a degree of succour to the peasant.

The squeeze on farm income

A contributing reason to the distress is the low price of farm produce. The Malwa region in western Madhya Pradesh experienced promising times in the first ten years of Shivraj Singh Chauhan’s rule. Production of soya bean rose by over ten times, its price went up by nearly three times and its export from India also increased by over ten times. The boom was followed by a sharp downturn in the last four years – prices have fallen and exports have collapsed. However, the Congress has recovered its electoral fortune in the Malwa-Nimar region this year.

In the 2018 Union budget, Arun Jaitley announced that farmers would be paid a minimum support price (MSP) which ensured 50% profit over the cost of farming. However, there is a debate over which cost should be taken as the cost of farming. Nevertheless, whatever be the benchmark cost, farmers are not getting the MSP.

First, in many regions the government does not buy from the farmer; there is lack of adequate infrastructure. Second, the government does not buy every kind of crop – only a few crops, such as wheat and paddy are purchased. The Shanta Kumar Committee cited that only 6% of Indian farmers actually sell crops to the government. Thus, all farmers do not get the benefit of an MSP hike.

In October 2018, out of 14 crops for which the government announced the MSP, the market price was lower than the MSP for 12. The aim of the MSP policy is to guarantee a certain minimum price to the farmer. When the market price plummets due to the capriciousness of supply and demand, the farmer is guaranteed of a minimum revenue. If the market price is below the MSP, it means the farmer is getting forced to sell her crop at sub-MSP prices. Thus, the impact of the MSP is not being felt on the ground.

Also read: The Budget Should Have Eased Agricultural Bottlenecks and Brought Structural Reforms

A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. Although loan waivers and the MSP have limited effects, farmers continue to demand them. The farmers who walked the roads of Mumbai and Delhi have raised these demands. Parties realise the political appeal of assuring incomes to farmers. This year’s interim Union budget promised Rs 6,000 as an annually assured income to small and marginal farmers. But this amount is a pittance compared to the cost of production. It does not cover farm labourers or tenant farmers, who are more vulnerable and outnumber owner-farmers. Yet, the pre-election sop may draw many cash-strapped voters.

Farm loan waivers, higher support prices and assured incomes provide relief to some farmers, but it is debatable whether they provide a long-term solution to the crisis. What haunts Indian agriculture is structural in nature, and it has to be confronted as such. Otherwise, one would be mistaking symptoms for the disease.

Long-term solutions

First, agriculture cannot be seen in isolation from the rest of the economy. Industries and the service sector are not creating enough jobs, while a large population remains parked in agriculture because they are not finding jobs elsewhere. In a survey conducted in 2003 by the National Sample Survey Office (NSSO), 40% farmers reported they did not like farming and, if given a chance, would take up an alternative occupation. In a 2013-14 survey by the the Centre for the Study of Developing Societies (CSDS), 61% farmers wanted to quit farming and move to urban areas.

If other sectors generate sufficient jobs, the pressures on farming would expectedly subside. Farmers would have savings on their hand, which, when ploughed back into farming, would raise productivity and production. On the demand side, greater employment generation would provide more purchasing power to the employed, thereby raising demands for agricultural goods and pushing up their prices, thus rendering cultivation profitable. However, on the jobs front, things have been depressing, to say the least.

Second, there is a need to recalibrate trade policy. Mainstream economic theory posits that free trade eventually benefits everyone. There is not much talk on when that ‘eventually’ actually comes about, or how those who lose jobs to competition with cheap imports would find alternative jobs. But overlooking uncomfortable questions do not make them go away. They only reappear later in violent and distorted avatars.

In the US and Europe, the rage of those adversely affected by free trade is coming out via the politics of xenophobia. In India, trade openness has dealt a severe blow to farm prices in many cases. The farmer has to be paid a just price and trade policies can be accordingly tailored. This may raise the price of food. A revamped Public Distribution System would protect the needy.

Also read: Will Modi’s New Farmer Income Scheme be the Band-Aid that Indian Agriculture Needs?

Third, public investment. During 1951-1965, agricultural production rose at an impressive rate. The rate of growth of the primary sector GDP in those years was higher than the average growth in the last half of the 20th century. The government invested sumptuously in agriculture during this phase of high planning, but since the 1980s, public investment in agriculture has been waning.

In 2012-13 for instance, its share was around 16% – down from 46% in 1980-81. Irrigation, infrastructure, marketing, research, extension services – many avenues still exist where planned state expenditure can make a difference. India’s agricultural productivity lies much below the global average. There is much room for improvement.

The demand for farm loan waivers and higher MSP should be raised. About half of India’s work force is engaged in agriculture, and our democracy would only strengthen if the sector’s concerns are lent an ear. At the same time, the politics of the day should be far-sighted. As Nehru in 1963 said:

“One has to find a healthy balance between the immediate benefits of today and the long-range benefits of tomorrow. All the money we have put in heavy industries is for tomorrow’s benefit… “

Although land reforms were a botched process, the Nehru-Mahalanobis strategy was correct in emphasising the “long-range benefits of tomorrow”. A similar vision needs to illuminate today’s endeavours to give farmers their due.

Debarshi Das is at the Humanities and Social Science Department, IIT, Guwahati.

A Bengali version of the article was published in the Anandabazar Patrika.

Budget 2019: ‘Anything Less Than Rs 88,000 Crore for MGNREGA Is Insufficient’

The Modi government allocated Rs 60,000 crore for the scheme in the interim budget announced on February 1.

New Delhi: If the government’s flagship programme to address rural poverty, the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA), is to be made effective, it would need an annual budgetary allocation of Rs 88,000 crore for the financial year 2019-20. That is Rs 20,000 crore more than the Rs 60,000 crore assigned for it in the interim budget announced on February 1.

“Any budget less than Rs. 88,000 crore will be insufficient to meet even projected demand for work and the timely payment of wages,” noted the Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan (MKSS). The social movement and grassroots organisation best known for its successful campaign for the Right to Information Act under the leadership of Aruna Roy argued that unpaid dues to workers under the scheme have already risen to Rs 7,568 crore and the amount “is only going to increase by the close of the financial year.”

“This means that even before the start of the new financial year in April (2019-20), the programme is effectively left with a budget of Rs 52,000. The true picture of funding for MGNREGA is, therefore, deliberately masked in the high-pitched budget announcements made in Parliament. The vicious cycle of pending liabilities and the mounting fund crunch can only be broken if the budget allocation for MGNREGA is substantially increased,” it stated.

Also read: Education and Employment Drew Blanks in the Interim Budget

The Union budget presented in February 2018 made an initial allocation of Rs 55,000 crore for the financial year 2018-19. The amount was exhausted before January 2019. “Owing to mounting pressure and criticism from MGNREGA workers, citizen campaigns and Members of Parliament, an additional Rs 6,084 crores was allocated to honour legal commitments to the programme. However, it is unclear whether this amount has been released to states yet. In this context, the finance minister’s announcement of an allocation of Rs 60,000 crore to MGNREGA for 2019-20 yet again demonstrates a lack of intent and commitment to implement the MGNREGA in letter and spirit,” the statement said.

The MKSS press statement, issued on February 3, also underlined, “As per sample independent studies, the actual wages paid on time in 2017-18 is likely to be around 32 per cent instead of the figure of 85 per cent presented by the government.” Punching holes in the government’s claims, the organisation said that in spite of repeated pleas to the Ministry of Rural Development, which implements the scheme in collaboration with the states, “it hasn’t recorded or displayed delays that occur at its level, or that of the payment agencies (which it is responsible for).”

“Two independent studies, using government’s own data have shown that for the first two quarters of FY 18, rather than the figure of 85 per cent wages paid on time, the actual ratio is likely to be closer to 32 per cent, if central government and payment agencies delays are accounted for. The situation usually worsens in the last two quarters of each year as the meagre allocated funds get exhausted by then.”

Since the government hasn’t calculated the full extent of delays, the full amount of compensation owed to workers is also not calculated. “The accountability of the central government and payment agencies has not been fixed despite repeatedly pointing it out. Even for the limited amount of compensation that is currently getting attributed only to various state governments, owing to the Centre’s false definition of what constitutes as ‘delay’, at the rate of 0.05 per cent per day of delay, amounting to a total of 1,898 crores (since December 2013), less than 4 per cent has actually been paid to workers.”

Also read: Modi Launches a Startling Pre-Election Budget, Massaged by Creative Accounting

The pending liabilities of wages during the last seven financial years have stretched from 10% to 35%.

MKSS also demanded that MGNREGA wage rates be brought at par with state minimum wages in line with constitutional commitments and as various committees of the MoRD has repeatedly recommended. “At the very least, wages should be indexed to inflation as per the Consumer Price Index of Rural Labour (CPI-R).”

The activists highlighted that though the demand-driven rural employment scheme is clear that the gram sabhas are to determine the quantum and type of works to be taken up in a given year, “this has been relentlessly abused by different state and central governments. The projected person-days that emerge from such bottom up planning are examined at the central government level and are being reduced to an illegal concept called ‘approved labour budget’, which is contrary to the spirit of the Act.”

At a time when rising unemployment and declining farm incomes have led to severe rural distress across the country, the group said, effective implementation of the MGNREGA has become even more necessary.

The Budget Should Have Eased Agricultural Bottlenecks and Brought Structural Reforms

It is high time politicians gave confidence to our farmers by investing in agricultural infrastructure and ensured a fair price for their produce.

The income support scheme in the ‘interim budget’ can give ‘interim relief’ to the farmers, but cannot provide a sustainable solution to unfair price related problems in the agricultural sector. The budget statement proposed Rs 6,000 per annum for farmers with less than five acres, under ‘Kisan Samman Nidhi’ (Farmer Honour Fund). The budget lacks focus on improving agricultural infrastructure to reduce the fixed cost of cultivation.

An abundance of food has pushed the agricultural sector away from policy and budgetary priorities in recent times. Many scholars equate farm subsidies to wasteful and populist investment in India. Others advocate migration of the population employed in farming to other industries. Another set of scholars support the public investment in mass-based agriculture system, not only for farmers’ welfare and food security, but also economy-wide growth resulting from enhanced purchasing power.

Perpetual ‘stress’ in the sector is a cause of concern at the macro level for policy makers, and it has turned suicidal at the micro level for farmers. It is important to examine the policy bottlenecks and possible solutions for the sector.

Fair price

The aim of doubling farmers’ income is timely and in the right direction, but the step has not given the required importance to ‘price realisation’, which is the most significant component of farmers’ income. The price realisation of a farmer is important not only from enhanced income perspective, but it is also the key to re-investing in agriculture.

V.P.S. Arora argued that the main objective of the Indian government’s agriculture-price-policy is to protect both producers and consumers. In India, today, the price of 23 crops is managed through the ‘Commission for Agricultural Costs and Prices’ (CACP), which is envisioned to bring a fair pricing structure, considering the ‘cost of cultivation’ of major crops. CACP also considers other factors such as domestic and international demand and supply; it also incentivises the resource conservation in cultivation.

Many scholars have pointed towards the lack of efficacy of the CACP while deciding prices. In a report to measure the efficacy of MSPs, the NITI Aayog found that a low proportion of surveyed farmers (10%) were aware of it before the sowing season. 62% of the farmers were informed of MSPs after sowing their crops.

Also read: Will Modi’s New Farmer Income Scheme be the Band-Aid that Indian Agriculture Needs?

The effectiveness of MSP comes down if the farmers are not taking production decisions accordingly. In an empirical study to gauge the contribution of Rashtriya Krishi Vikas Yojna (RKVY), this author found that farmers and agriculture officers perceive ‘price’ as the most important factor of farm-competitiveness, which doesn’t find place in targets of RKVY. The main policy bottleneck while seeking solutions to farm crisis is the exclusion of ‘price’ at the execution level of agricultural policy schemes.

The agricultural pricing policy needs to be reviewed to ensure that farmers are receiving fair prices for their produce. One of the measures recommended, is a price deficiency system. Under this system, farmers would be compensated for farm commodities if the prices fall under a specified threshold. It is being implemented in Madhya Pradesh under the name of ‘Bhawantar Yojna’; results of which are not very positive due to a cartel of middlemen sitting at local agriculture markets.

The Swaminathan Commission – after a thorough research – recommended a formula: MSP should be at least 50% more than the weighted average cost of production. Most of the cash crops are not fetching prices according to this formula in India today. Also, the current government has excluded rent of land in MSP calculations, which has become an obstacle in fair pricing – especially when the same government encourages leasing of land to leverage economy of scale in farming.

Targeted farm subsidies

The critics of public subsidies are not convinced about the potential of agriculture as a viable business. They indicate rampant corruption and ill-targeted expenditure without expected return on investment. Measures like direct benefit transfers have increased the accuracy of selecting the right beneficiary to a certain level, but the inefficiencies of agricultural subsidies continues to remain a concern.

Accommodating both, the concern of welfare and efficiency, a policy directed at sustainable farming is the need of the hour. One potential solution is directing most of subsidies in ‘fixed costs’ instead of ‘variable costs’ of cultivation – which would minimise leakages and help in developing agricultural infrastructure. For example, investments in underground pipelines for irrigation would give more returns than subsidising seeds (for which private sector is competitive enough). It is empirically evident from primary research by this author that farmers value public investment in the irrigation over seeds.

A highly commercialised agri-value chain is established around farm-inputs and farm-outputs, yet ‘agribusiness’ remains a cliché when it comes to small sized Indian farms. Growth of the food processing sector is 8.4%, which is more than double compared to its raw material provider i.e. agriculture (Economic Survey for 2013-14). For transit of agriculture to agribusiness, public investment in infrastructure like connecting roads, market yards, warehouses, irrigation ponds, processing units is crucial.

Large population engaged in agriculture

Ignoring false bottlenecks is as important as focusing on the real ones. The large population engaged in agriculture is assumed to be a bottleneck without the existence of sufficient job opportunities in alternate sectors. Policy makers are considering an excessive population engaged in farming as the reason for small land holdings making farming economically unviable.

India, a mass-based-agri-production-system, employs about 40% of the population. Seventy per cent of food and milk comes from small farms. India also ranks first in production of milk and pulses, second in rice, wheat, fruits and vegetables; and third in overall food grains. Why is this population of skilled manpower in agriculture not considered a competitive advantage by the policy makers? Citing mechanic calculations of economic formula, input (population) versus output (per cent contribution in GDP) in agriculture may not give the right picture of contribution of this sector.

At a time when the population is increasing and cultivable land along with soil quality is decreasing, investing in the farm sector can provide a strategic advantage to India.

Politicising Agrarian Distress

In today’s India, politicising an issue is seen as manipulating it for selfish reasons. Agriculture is seen as a perpetually distressed sector, which remains a hot issue for opposition parties. However, in a representative democracy, politics is the only way to influence policy. Government data establishes that the average growth of the farm sector has decreased under Narendra Modi’s rule (2%) as compared to that of the Manmohan Singh’s (4%). Also, at the individual farm-level, profits have come down in many crops and loan liability has gone up. Could this distress turn into an anti-BJP vote bank in the upcoming general elections?

The farmers in India have never been reported to vote strategically based on their profession. Agrarian demography of a village is very diverse in terms of caste, class, land ownership, crops grown. Nevertheless, in the recent times, the left affiliated ‘Kisan-Long-March’, Kairana by-polls and ‘Kisan Kranti Yatraare’ discussed among farmers and farm-labourers. The Swaminathan Report and MSP have become buzz words for political bargaining in rural India.

Also read: Interim Budget Promises Rs 75,000 Crore Income Support for Farmers

Prime Minister Narendra Modi, a suave politician, understands the situation. The recent BJP convention passed a resolution on agriculture, describing it as a top-most priority. The aggressiveness of Rahul Gandhi on farmers’ issue puts him in the driving seat and he seems to be pulling the right levers. He pitched a farm-loan waiver while campaigning in five state elections and ultimately fulfilled the promise the three states where his party has won.

He acknowledges that farm-loan waiver is just an interim step and vowed to work further on building sustainable infrastructure dedicated to the agriculture sector. It is interesting to see if the opposition parties could construct a narrative around solutions to farmers’ distress.

It is high time politicians and policy makers gave confidence to our farmers by investing in agricultural infrastructure. Ensuring a fair price of produce for farmers will do away with the need for giving ‘interim relief’. Policies with measurable targets to improve market functioning can use the capability of millions of farmers to make farming a profession of profit and dignity.

Vikas Singh is a PhD scholar from the Indian Institute of Plantation Management, Bangalore. His area of interest includes agricultural policies and political marketing.

Will Modi’s New Farmer Income Scheme be the Band-Aid that Indian Agriculture Needs?

It remains to be seen how much of a dent will this make in the average outstanding debt of each agricultural household.

New Delhi: The Narendra Modi led government on Friday announced a new Pradhan Mantri Kisan Samman Nidhi scheme for farmers.

Stand-in finance minister Piyush Goyal, presenting the last budget of his government, said that the government will provide Rs 6,000 per year for each agricultural household with a landholding of less than 2 hectares. The direct income transfer, which will be funded entirely by the Central government, will be made in three equal instalments.

The scheme, Goyal said, will benefit 12 crore farmers and will cost the Centre Rs 75,000 crore per annum. It will be implemented with effect December 2018 and the first instalment will be paid during the current financial year. Rs 20,000 crore has been allocated for that purpose.

The announcement of an income support scheme was expected, particularly after the Congress party announced that it will be providing a minimum income guarantee to every ‘poor’ household if it is voted to power.

In the last few months, a policy consensus seems to have emerged that methods other than minimum support prices (MSP) are needed to deal with agrarian distress – largely caused by declining rural incomes. After last year’s announcement of a ‘historic’ hike in MSP, it was seen that the prices prevailing in wholesale markets, for most crops, were well below the MSP set by the government.

“MSP announcement is for the entertainment of farmers,” a senior government policy adviser had commented in an on-off-the-record conversation.

Telangana took the lead in devising alternate mechanisms. In May 2018, it announced the Rythu Bandhu in which every land owning farmer gets Rs 8,000 per acre per year in two instalments – once before the rabi season and once before the kharif.

Also read: Interim Budget Promises Rs 75,000 Crore Income Support for Farmers

Subsequently, other states, too, have announced their own versions of a direct income support for farmers. Most notably, Odisha announced a composite scheme – Krushak Assistance for Livelihood and Income Augmentation (KALIA) – where the state government will be providing Rs 10,000 per family per year to marginal and small farmers.

Each landless agricultural household will be provided Rs 12,500 to support agriculture and allied activities. ‘Vulnerable cultivators’ will get Rs 10,000 per year per family. Life insurance cover of Rs 2 lakh will also be provided at a nominal premium. Agricultural households identified as vulnerable will be provided crop loans up to Rs 50,000 at 0% interest.

Substantially less than state schemes

The Centre’s Pradhan Mantri Kisan Samman Nidhi’s income support of Rs 6,000 per year is less than the support offered in the state schemes of Odisha and Telangana, which are providing Rs 10,000 per year and Rs 8,000 per acre per year, respectively.

So, in Telangana, a farmer owning 2 hectares, which translates to 5 acres, will get Rs 40,000 per year. In the Centre’s scheme she will get Rs 6,000 per year.

The Centre’s scheme also completely ignores the 10-crore landless agricultural labourers. Unlike the KALIA in Odisha, which provides Rs 12,500 to landless agricultural households, they found no space in the prime minister’s scheme.

Challenges of implementation

The PM Kisan Samman Nidhi scheme will be funded by the Centre and is likely that it will be implemented by the states. “The exclusion criteria means that the states will have to identify the farmers who own less than 2 hectares of land,” said Himanshu, associate professor of Economics at JNU.

The identification, too, will be a challenge as very few states have updated land records. “The updation of land records is time consuming and it is not easy,” Himanshu said.

“The updation of land records to identify beneficiaries took almost a year in Telangana before Rythu Bandhu was implemented,” said a former agriculture ministry official.

“It remains to be seen how the Centre will implement this scheme before the elections,” said the official.

In remarks made to television news channels on Friday evening, senior finance ministry officials confirmed that the Centre would have to work with states to identify potential beneficiaries.

‘Not enough’

Rahul Gandhi, president of the Congress party, said that the Rs 17 a day (Rs 6,000 per year translates to Rs 17 per day) as income support for farmers is an ‘insult’.

Farmers, under the aegis of the All India Kisan Sabha (AIKS), who were protesting at the Jantar Mantar even as Piyush Goyal announced the income support scheme, agree with Gandhi.

“It is a hand-out,” said Hannan Mollah, general secretary of the AIKS. “It speaks of the Modi government’s arrogance that it thinks that handing out farmers Rs 17 a day will make them happy or solve the problems of the agriculture sector.”

Also read: Piyush Goyal’s Budget 2019 Speech: Key Highlights

Social scientist and politician Yogendra Yadav called it a ‘dishonourable bargain’.

“The government’s real intention is clear from the decision to begin this scheme retrospectively and to pass on the first instalment within this financial year. Clearly, this is a desperate measure to buy the farmers’ votes, by transferring Rs 2,000 to their accounts before the election. It is a double insult to the farmers that the government expects to get the farmers’ votes so cheap,” he said.

Farm leaders continue to insist that their protests will not stop till their demands of setting MSP at cost (C2) plus 50% and a one-time unconditional loan waiver are met. “That has been our demand. We did not demand this hand-out that the government has given. Our demands remain,” said Mollah.

The problem of low incomes and mounting debt are connected. A working paper by the RBI pointed out that rural wage growth has shown a declining trend since 2014. For several months, food inflation has been below general inflation – which means that the prices farmers get for their produce has not kept pace with the price they pay for inputs and for their other needs.

Declining incomes put farmers in cyclical debt as they are pushed to borrow, but are unable to repay. The average outstanding debt of each agricultural household, according to the NABARD’s financial inclusion survey in 2016-17, was Rs 1.04 lakh.

How far Rs 6,000 per year income assistance will go, without the requisite market reforms needed to ensure farmers get a fair price, remains to be seen.

2019 Budget Allocation for MGNREGA Is Less Than What Was Spent Last Year

The problem of giving less than what is needed, and then making up for it later, continues in the interim budget.

New Delhi: Interim finance minister Piyush Goyal announced in the Lok Sabha during his interim budget presentation on Friday that the government has allocated Rs 60,000 crore for the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (MGNREGA) for the financial year 2019-20.

The minister said the allocation for the flagship programme of the rural development ministry would be increased if required.

However, data shows that the announced allocation is 1.8% less than what was given for the 2018-19 financial year.

In January 2019, the government had to allocate an additional Rs 6,084 crore to the programme to meet its financial demands, thus taking up the total amount to be spent in the financial year 2018-19 to Rs 61,084 crore. In February 2018, the Union budget had earmarked Rs 55,000 crore to the demand-driven rural employment scheme.

Also read: Budget 2019: Minimum Income Tax Slab Is Now Rs 5 Lakh

If you take into account the budgetary distributions and the supplementary allocation of funds to the programme for the last few years, it can be deduced that though the demand for it has been steadily increasing, the government has not been able to address it fully, leading to pending liabilities.

Prior to the presentation of the 2018 full budget, NREGA Sangharsh Morcha, a country-wide coalition of organisations and individuals, had submitted a memorandum to the Union finance ministry stating that there should be an annual allocation in the range of Rs 80,000 crore to be able to minimally function as per its legal provisions.

After the budget was presented, the coalition issued a statement highlighting the point that the inadequate budget for the MGNREGA would likely lead to a number of problems, such as delays in wage payments, non-payment of minimum wages, low scale of work, etc.

The year before that saw these glitches due to under-allocation of funds. As per a Supreme Court order, the government is supposed to pay a fine to the workers if it fails to pay them wages on time. The underfunding of the programme is leading to a violation of the SC order.

In December 2017, a study conducted by Rajendran Narayanan from the Azim Premji University, Bangalore, in collaboration with two independent researchers, had corroborated the Morcha’s stand on requirement for more budgetary allocations for MGNREGA. It pointed out that 80% of the funds allocated under the scheme was utilised in just four months, leaving merely 20% for the rest of the year.

Also read: Piyush Goyal’s Budget 2019 Speech: Key Highlights

Early January, several MPs, activists, academics, bureaucrats and leaders of farmers’ movements wrote an open letter to the Prime Minister highlighting the chronic underfunding of the programme brought to address rural poverty.

In a press note issued on January 30, the Morcha said, “The supplementary budget (of Rs 6,084 crore made in mid January) is too little, too late.” It also pointed out that even that amount “is yet to released” by the government as the NREGA website still shows the total release of funds so far only at Rs 53,353 crore. Demanding the immediate release of funds, it said, “Including the state share, the total availability of funds is Rs.59,709 crore, whereas the total expenditure so far is Rs 63,537 crore.”

On January 25, the BJP government in Jharkhand sent a letter to the rural development ministry seeking additional funds to clear a liability of Rs 39 crore. The Morcha’s January 30 statement highlighted that the state government’s letter also mentioned that “no funds have been released to NE-FMS account for the last two days (January 24 and 25, 2019). This also exposes the claims of the Ministry that the NE-FMS mechanism has streamlined the funds flow to the states”.

The National Electronic Fund Management System (NE-FMS) was introduced by the Modi government in 2016 to streamline the flow of funds to the states meant for paying wages under the programme.

Watch | Budget 2019: Unpacking Modi’s Election-Eve Gifts

The statement pointed out that “81 per cent of the Fund Transfer Orders (FTOs) of January 2019 and 43 per cent of FTOs of February 2018 (and some FTOs of previous months) remain unprocessed by the Ministry of Rural Development.”

Reacting to the interim budget announcement for the programme, Jharkhand NREGA Watch, in a statement, called it a “mockery”.

“On one hand, migration is increasing in Jharkhand, on the other hand, the central and state governments are constantly undermining and weakening the constitutional guarantee for employment in rural areas, “the statement said, adding, “Tomorrow (February 2), it will be 13 years since the NREGA was enacted in Parliament. However, the right to work has become a mockery in today’s time.” In the last three years, the state government has deleted seven lakh job cards, many of whom were not aware of it and continued to work under the programme.

As per the NREGA Act, each rural household can demand 100 days of work from the government.

Interim Budget Promises Rs 75,000 Crore Income Support for Farmers

Around twelve crore agricultural households will receive Rs 6,000 per year in three installments, Piyush Goyal said in his budget speech.

New Delhi: Presenting the last budget before the 2019 general elections, Piyush Goyal, the stand-in finance minister, announced a direct income support for small and marginal farmers who own less than 2 hectares (5 acres) of land. Around 12 crore agricultural households, Goyal said, will be given an income support of Rs 6,000 per year. The scheme will be entirely funded by the Central government.

They will receive the money in three instalments over the year. The first instalment will be transferred in the current financial year, for which Goyal allocated Rs 20,000 crore. Subsequently, in the 2019-20 FY, the Pradhan Mantri Kisan Samman Nidhi scheme will cost the Centre Rs 75,000 crore.

Also Read: Piyush Goyal’s Budget 2019 Speech: Key Highlights

Interestingly, the scheme stopped short of mentioning any income support for the 10 crore landless agricultural labourers in the country. This number has been on the rise in recent years. Between census 2001 and census 2011, a large number of farmers switched to being agricultural labourers.

To put this in perspective, the Rs 6,000 per year income support for small and marginal farmers is less than the benefit under the Rythu Bandhu scheme in Telangana and the Kalia scheme in Odisha.

Under the Rythu Bandhu, farmers receive Rs 8,000 per year per acre of land holding. Under the Kalia, farmers receive Rs 10,000 per year. Landless agricultural households also receive Rs 12,500 per year. While the scheme in Telangana is extended to all farmers, the scheme in Odisha and the one announced by Goyal are limited to small farmers (those with landholding less than 2 hectares of 5 acres).